Interesting CPU Test

[Bozo]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1876685,00.asp


Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[Tannin]

It's complete horseshit. They should be ashamed of themselves, printing crap like that.

 

[P5-133XL]

I have to, unfortunately, admit that Tannin is correct -- Utter horseshit.

 

[Santilli]

Dual-core processors didn't always fare well. To be fair, these tests tend to focus on single applications running at a time (even though some are multi-threaded). We're not attempting to measure perceived responsiveness, and that may be the dual-core processor's real strength. Of course, part of the reason is that the dual-core CPUs tend to be priced higher than their single-core clock-rate equivalents. Certainly the die sizes are as much to blame as any premium pricing by the CPU companies: A bigger die means higher costs, and so they need to be priced higher. If you compare them with the cost of two single cores, then the picture looks a bit brighter. But it's also clear that application development for multicore is still relatively immature, and we'll need to wait awhile to see more significant benefits.

Really :?: I have a dual Xeon 2.8 in the other room, and, with scsi in both, admittedly a dual cheetah raid zero on the Supermicro/xeon rig, there isn't any comparision between the two, speedwise. The Athlon 3000+ does shine at games, which might be what these guys are mainly intrested in.

I'm sorry, but I trust you guys enough not to waste time sorting through the entire review...

GS

 

[Buck]

Hoolie doolie! The Pentium 4 630 gets the nod for best office CPU? Obviously these guys don't build or use computers.